9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 838X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e itself has allowed deduction under Section 10A of the Act to the assessee for first time in the A.Y. 2004-05. In subsequent assessment years, the assessee by following the same claimed deduction under Section 10A and Revenue has not disputed the same. However, in the year under consideration the AO disallowed the deduction only after Learned Commissioner set aside the Assessment Order u/s 263 of the Act. Hence, it is transpired that the Revenue was convinced to the fact that assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 10A. Ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. - Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Member And Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Bhavin Marfatia, AR For the Revenue : Shri Virendra Ojha, CIT DR. ORDER PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The appeal has been filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection has been filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 which are arising from the order of the CIT(A)-3, Ahmedabad dated 22.02.2017, in the proceedings under section 144r.w.s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ). 2. The inter connected issue raised by the Revenue is that the Learned CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 43(2) dated 08thJune 2015 to the assessee for de novo assessment. Subsequently, the AO issued the show causenotice to the assessee under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 03rdJuly 2015 proposing the disallowance of the deduction claimed by it under Section 10A of the Act. However, there was no compliance from the side of the assessee. Thus, the AO, in the absence of any documentary evidence, disallowed the claim of the assessee for the deduction under Section 10A of the Act amounting to ₹ 2,98,00,647/- and added the same to the total income. 9. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the Learned CIT(A). 10. The assessee before the Learned CIT(A) submitted that the provisions of Section 10A of the Act does not require the assessee to be situated within the area of Software Technology Park. What is required is that the assessee should be registered with the Software Technology Park scheme and it should commence manufacturing producing computer software on or after 1stApril 1994 which has been duly fulfilled. 11. The assessee further submitted that, it has been registered with jurisdictional office of STPI after due compliance of all necessary requirements which is situated at I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ient for claiming deduction under Section 10B of the Act. 12. Being aggrieved by the order of the Learned CIT(A) the Revenue is in appeal before us. 13. The Learned DR before us vehemently supported the order of the AO. On the contrary, the Learned AR before us filed a Paper Book running from pages 1 to 55 and submitted that there is no requirement for the assessee to function from the area of Software Technology Park as alleged by the AO. The Learned AR further submitted that it is sufficient enough to claim the deduction under Section 10A of the Act if the assessee is registered with the STPI which has been duly done in the present case. The Learned AR in support of his contention drew our attention on page 24 to 29 of the Paper Book where the copy of the registration certificate was placed which was renewed vide sanction letter dated 22ndAugust 2008, the copy of the same placed on page 30 to 31 of Paper Book. 14. The Learned AR also drew attention on the clarification letter issued by the Director of Gandhinagar Software Technology Park placed on page 32-33 of the Paper Book wherein it was stated that as per Notification No. 33/(RE)/92-97 dated 22ndMarch 1994 issued by Ministry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /92-97 Dated 22nd March 1994 of Ministry of Commerce, Govt. of India A STP unit may be an individual unit by itself or it may be one of such units located in an area designed as STP Complex by the Department of Electronics (Copy enclosed) Hence M/s. Intraaction Software was a valid STP unit registered under STP scheme for the unit location B/5 Mantra Opp. Amrapali III, Opp. Shradda Petrol Pump, Judges Bunglows Road, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad registered vide Letter of Permission No. STPIG/EXIM/S/IAS/383/3047 dated 29.05.2003. From the above it is transpired that it is not necessary for the assessee to be situated within the area of Software Technology Park. As such unit/undertaking located within the jurisdiction of the designated officerof Software Technology Park can be registered on standalone basis. 19. We also note that Delhi Tribunal in the case of Xerox India Ltd. vs. ACIT reported in [2010] 127 TTJ 84 (Delhi) has taken a view that the registration with Software Technology Park is sufficient compliance for claiming the deduction under Section 10A of the Act. The relevant extract of the order reads as under: 24. In this case, we find that findings of facts recorded in the order of l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
